TURKEY – MEMBERSHIP OR PARTNERSHIP?
written by: Dieter Farwick, 05-Oct-05
PeaceJournalism.com, Nepal
Oct 5 2005
Turkey and the Asian and European neighbours It was a last minute
compromise. The question: “Turkey – membership or partnership?” had
become the remaining stumbling block on the road to negotiations
between the European Union and Turkey.
It came to some as a surprise that Austria rejected the proposal for
negotiations agreed upon by the 25 European heads of state in December
2004, negotiations with only one objective: Full membership of Turkey –
if and when Turkey meets the standards and criteria the EU has set.
Austria – against the rest of the EU.
In European countries, the resistance of Austria was met with more
sympathy than in the European governments. Why? For many people in
Europe, the perception of the EU has changed and there is no attractive
vision left.
The rejection of the proposed constitution by France and the
Netherlands brought back the question: Which kind of Europe do we
really want? Where are the cultural and physical borders of Europe?
Bureaucracy and centralization in Brussels have acquired a more
negative connotation. The rejection of the EU constitution by both
France and the Netherlands has made it obvious that the EU is not
in good shape. The extension by 10 new members without a necessary
reform is hard to digest. Cheap labor from the new members caused more
unemployment in the “old European countries”. The failing integration
of Muslims in many European countries and the terrorist attacks by
Muslims in summer 2005 increased already existing irritations and
uncertainties.
More countries will join the EU before the decision concerning Turkey
will be taken. The crucial question remains: Will the EU “25 plus” be
able to take Turkey in and will Turkey be able to meet the standards?
If and when Turkey becomes a member of the EU in 10-15 years time,
Turkey would become Nr.1 as far as population is concerned. It would
receive about 70 seats in the EU parliament – at the expense of the
“old” member states. Today, Turkey is a secular state. Will it last
the next decade? As Austria has shown, a single member can block
any decision. The EU is based on the common values derived from a
Christian – occidental culture. Turkey’s membership would certainly
change this character.
Without a doubt: Turkey will remain very important for the West’s
stability and security. Turkey is a springboard for Western ideas in
the Broader Middle East and Asia, where remarkable ethnic bindings
exist.
Turkey is a very strong pillar of the North Atlantic Alliance/NATO.
Having worked with Turkish soldiers, I appreciate them in integrated
NATO HQ and know the military skills of their troops. Being a member
of NATO, Turkey gets all support needed for security and stability.
The West gets all it needs through this membership in NATO as well.
Is there a need for additional support? Could a so-called “privileged
partnership” be a substitute for full membership?
The greatest mistake of the past might be that the United States and
Europe raised expectations that were too high for Turkey. On the other
hand, Turkish politics towards Cyprus, which is already a member of
the EU and the behavior concerning the Armenian genocide were not
very helpful.
With some hours delay, the official negotiations started on October
3 – as planned before – in Luxemburg.
Dr. Andrea Riemer of Austria, who has written newsletters for us
before, poses the decisive questions and tries to find some answers.
She offers a yardstick for all of us following the further
development. The topic EU/Turkey will be with us for the next 10-15
years. It is worth being presented here.
Turkey has to change a lot to become eligible for full membership in
the EU. It must become more democratic and tolerant toward ethnic
minorities. This process in itself is already a success – as was
shown in other countries aiming at membership in the EU.
World Security Network.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress